SA Journal of Industrial Psychology
ISSN: (Online) 2071-0763, (Print) 0258-5200
Servant leadership and work-related well-being
in a construction company
Authors:
Michiel F. Coetzer1
Mark H.R. Bussin1
Madelyn Geldenhuys1
Affiliations:
1
Department of Industrial
Psychology and People
Management, University of
Johannesburg, South Africa
Corresponding author:
Michiel Coetzer,
ccoetzer@wisdomy.co.za
Dates:
Received: 31 July 2017
Accepted: 15 Sept. 2017
Published: 17 Nov. 2017
How to cite this article:
Coetzer, M.F., Bussin, M.H.R.
& Geldenhuys, M., 2017,
‘Servant leadership and work-
related well-being in a
construction company’, SA
Journal of Industrial
Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir
Bedryfsielkunde 43(0), a1478.
https://doi.org/10.4102/
sajip.v43i0.1478
Copyright:
© 2017. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Page 1 of 10 Original Research
Orientation: High levels of work-related well-being are imperative to ensure financial stability,
competitiveness and sustainability in the construction industry. Leadership plays a
fundamental role to enhance work engagement and to decrease burnout. The interrelationships
between servant leadership, job demands, job resources, work engagement and burnout are
still unknown, especially within the construction industry.
Research purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the interrelationships between servant
leadership, job demands, job resources, work engagement and burnout in a construction
company.
Motivation for the study: The construction industry is a highly demanding and labour intensive
industry, which makes it difficult to sustain high work engagement and low burnout. This
industry therefore calls for a people-orientated leadership approach, such as servant leadership,
to enhance job resources to ultimately increase work engagement and to decrease burnout levels.
Research design, approach and method: A quantitative research design was applied and four
quantitative surveys were used to collect data. Two hundred and twenty-four sets of
questionnaires were completed by employees in a South African construction company.
Main findings: The results indicated that job resources mediated a positive relationship
between servant leadership and work engagement and a negative relationship between
servant leadership and burnout. Servant leadership had a positive significant relationship
with job resources and significantly explained a proportion of the variance in job resources. Job
resources, in turn, significantly explained a proportion of increase in work engagement levels
and a proportion of reduction in burnout levels. An insignificant relationship was found
between job demands and servant leadership.
Practical or managerial implications: The findings showed that servant leadership could be
used as an effective leadership approach to enhance work engagement and to decrease burnout
in the construction industry.
Contribution or value-add: This study makes a theoretical contribution to the body of
knowledge on servant leadership and work-related well-being by providing empirical
evidence on the interrelationships between servant leadership, job demands, job resources,
work engagement and burnout.
Introduction
Work-related well-being is instrumental to ensure operational performance in the construction
industry. This industry is characterised by high job demands, long working hours, dangerous
working environments, low flexibility, isolated work locations, and stringent safety, health and
environment regulations (Lingard, 2003; Lingard & Sublet, 2002). Additional challenges in this
industry include labour unrests, skills shortages (SAFCEC, 2014), talent retention issues and
project execution problems (Naidoo et al., 2015). These working conditions and challenges could
make it difficult to sustain high levels of work engagement in this industry and may enhance the
risk of burnout, disengagement and ill health as it places more demands on employees. It is
therefore imperative for construction companies to maintain high levels of work-related well-
being to ensure financial stability, competitiveness and sustainability.
Work-related well-being focuses primarily on the employee’s well-being state while working. The
job demands resources theory describes two work-related well-being processes, namely a health
impairment process and a motivational process (Bakker, Demerouti & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). The
health impairment process is activated by high job demands combined with inadequate job
resources that consequently result in a negative employee state called burnout (Bakker &
http://www.sajip.co.za Open Access
 Page 2 of 10
Demerouti, 2007). Burnout is generally defined as an
individual state of low energy (exhaustion), motivation
(cynicism) and lack of perceived competence (professional
efficacy) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Burnout is associated
with several non-communicable diseases, for instance,
depression, diabetes, hypertension and irritable bowel
syndrome (De Beer, Pienaar, & Rothmann, 2016). In the
motivational process, adequate job resources buffer the
negative effects of challenging job demands, which cause a
positive employee state, namely work engagement (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007). Work engagement is an individual state
characterised by high energy (vigour), motivation (dedication)
and focus (absorption) (Bakker, 2011). Work engagement
showed to produce positive employee and organisational
outcomes such as higher employee commitment (Field &
Buitendach, 2012), organisational citizenship behaviour
(Saks, 2006), customer satisfaction, productivity, profitability
and safety behaviour (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).
Low work engagement and ill health (because of stress and
burnout) are, however, global problems. For example,
research showed that only 13% of employees worldwide are
highly engaged in their work and that 26% are actively
disengaged (Gallup, 2013). In South Africa, the percentage of
actively engaged employees is even lower at 9% (Gallup, 2013).
In terms of ill health, non-communicable diseases such
as cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory
diseases and diabetes are responsible for approximately 70%
of deaths globally and are highlighted as a leading cause of
deaths worldwide (World Health Organization, 2015). These
diseases do not only affect individual lives but also have a
negative economic impact on society and organisational
performance. For instance, the World Health Organization
(2014) estimated that non-communicable diseases would
cost low- and middle-income countries approximately
US$ 7 trillion over the next 10 years – 14 years. Employee
well-being has become imperative to sustain operational and
financial performance in organisations.
Leadership plays a fundamental role in sustaining optimum
work-related well-being, because leaders can influence the
job demands and job resources of employees. Servant
leadership might be an effective leadership approach to
enhance work engagement and to decrease burnout in the
construction industry. Servant leadership is a unique and
comprehensive leadership theory in which the leader serves,
empowers and supports employees to achieve meaningful
outcomes to the benefit of the individual, the organisation
and the community (Van Dierendonck, 2011). There seems to
be good theoretical alignment between servant leadership
and several job resources as per the job demands–resources
theory. For example, servant leadership is characterised by
authenticity (Laub, 1999), humility (Page & Wong, 2000),
accountability, empowerment, courage, forgiveness, standing
back (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) and stewardship
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). This aligns well with job resources
such as organisational support, growth opportunities,
relationship with colleagues, autonomy (control) and
rewards. The primary focus of servant leaders is to serve,
http://www.sajip.co.za
Original Research
empower and support employees (Greenleaf, 1998). This
could make servant leaders more attentive to provide the
necessary job resources to buffer the negative effects of high
job demands and challenging working conditions in the
construction industry.
Limited research is, however, available on the relationship
between servant leadership and the constructs of the job
demands–resources theory, namely job demands, job resources,
work engagement and burnout. The interrelationships
between servant leadership, job demands, job resources, work
engagement and burnout are still unknown.
Research purpose and objectives
The general aim of this study was to investigate the
interrelationships between servant leadership, job demands,
job resources, work engagement and burnout in a construction
company. The specific objectives of this study were to explore
the relationships between servant leadership and (1) work
engagement, (2) burnout, (3) job demands and (4) job
resources as well as the (5) interrelationships between these
variables in a construction company.
Literature review
The relationship between servant leadership
and the job demands and job resources of
followers
Specific research on the relationships between servant
leadership and job demands or job resources is still in need.
The dimensions of servant leadership seem to align well with
several job resources. Firstly, servant leaders set a compelling
vision (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005) and align individual talent
with the requirements of the position (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
This could enhance organisational resources such as person–
job fit and strategic alignment. Thereafter, servant leaders
continuously develop and empower employees to activate
individual talent (Van Dierendonck, 2011). This will provide
the employee with the job resources of development, talent
activation and career path opportunities. Servant leaders
furthermore focus on serving the physical, psychological,
emotional and spiritual needs of employees (Sendjaya, 2015).
This could provide employees with (a) the physical resources
required to complete a task; (b) the social resources to feel
safe, a sense of belonging and valued; and (c) the spiritual
resources to find meaning and fulfilment in work. Servant
leaders, in addition, strive to build trustful relationships with
their followers (Ehrhart, 2004) and empower employees to
become autonomous (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).
This might enhance leadership trust and supervisory support
and provide autonomy to individuals to control their jobs.
High levels of integrity and ethical conduct are also part of
servant leadership (Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson 2008;
Page & Wong, 2000) that can enhance organisational resources
such as organisational justice and fair remuneration. Lastly,
servant leaders apply good listening and reflection skills
(Spears, 2010) that could enhance communication as a job
resource to followers.
Open Access
 Page 3 of 10
In terms of job demands, servant leadership characteristics
such as compassion, listening, empowerment, accountability
and forgiveness could lessen high job demands. For example,
servant leaders will actively listen (Spears, 2010) to employees
when they experience job overload and apply the required
compassion (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014) by helping
employees to cope with high job demands. Servant leaders
will also empower employees (Page & Wong, 2000) before
they transfer accountability to them (Van Dierendonck &
Nuijten, 2011). In other words, a servant leader will ensure an
employee is adequately trained before he or she is put into a
position. This could reduce the level of job demands
employees experience when they start a new position or
when they accept new responsibilities in a current position.
Another servant leadership characteristic that could reduce
job demands is forgiveness (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten,
2011). Employees may experience less emotional load when
leaders forgive past mistakes without holding any grudges.
In general, servant leaders serve the needs of employees
(Sendjaya, 2015), which could include the provision of
adequate job resources. Adequate job resources will
ultimately counteract the negative effects of high job demands
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Although servant leadership seems to correlate well with job
resources theoretically, empirical evidence on these
relationships is still in need (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck,
2014). The direct influence of servant leadership on job
demands has also not yet been explored empirically. This
study aimed to address these research needs.
The following hypotheses emerged from the above literature
review:
H1: A positive significant relationship exists between servant
leadership and the job resources of followers.
H2: A negative significant relationship exists between servant
leadership and job demands (overload) of followers.
The relationship between servant leadership
and the work engagement of followers
Limited research is available on the relationship between
servant leadership and work engagement. Available studies
indicated a positive relationship between servant leadership
and work engagement (Carter & Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq,
Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Matsyborska, 2014) and a negative
relationship between servant leadership and disengagement
(Hunter et al., 2013). In one study, goal congruence
mediated the relationship between servant leadership and
work engagement (De Clercq et al., 2014), and in another
study, this relationship was mediated by organisational
identification and psychological empowerment (De Sousa
& Van Dierendonck, 2014).
Several studies found significant relationships between work
engagement and other leadership styles similar to servant
leadership. For example, previous studies showed a positive
relationship between work engagement and transformational
leadership (Bezuidenhout & Schultz, 2013; Kopperud,
http://www.sajip.co.za
Original Research
Martinsen, & Humborstad, 2014), authentic leadership (Alok &
Israel, 2012; Penger & Cerne, 2014), leader–member exchange
(Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & Van Den Heuvel, 2015),
charismatic leadership (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010),
empowering leadership (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Mendes &
Stander, 2011; Tuckey, Bakker, & Dollard, 2012) and engaging
leadership (Schaufeli, 2015). Although servant leadership
shares similarities with all these leadership theories, it is much
more comprehensive and includes additional leadership
dimensions that could be beneficial to enhance work
engagement. Servant leadership is also different in the sense
that it (1) focuses primarily on people and secondarily on
results (Chathury, 2008; Sendjaya, 2015); (2) uses servanthood
to enhance performance (Blanchard & Hodges, 2008); and
(3) aims to serve multiple stakeholders such as employees,
organisations, shareholders and the society (Peterson, Galvin
& Lange, 2012). Because of its nature to serve the needs of
employees first, servant leadership might offer the required
job resources to employees that would ultimately enhance
work engagement.
The following hypotheses are thus proposed:
H3: A positive significant relationship exists between servant
leadership and the work engagement of followers.
H4: Job resources mediate the relationship between servant
leadership and the work engagement of followers.
The relationship between servant leadership
and the burnout of followers
Research on the relationship between servant leadership
and burnout is still in need. A few studies indicated a
negative correlation. For instance, Babakus, Yavas and
Ashill, (2011) showed that servant leadership influences
burnout negatively and that person–job fit mediates this
relationship. Other studies reported a negative relationship
between servant leadership and two of the dimensions of
burnout, namely cynicism (Bobbio, Van Dierendonck, &
Manganelli, 2012) and emotional exhaustion (Tang, Kwan,
Zhang, & Zhu, 2016).
Other leadership theories that share common characteristics
with servant leadership also correlated negatively with
burnout. Hetland, Sandal and Johnsen (2007), for instance,
reported that transformational leadership correlated
negatively with cynicism and exhaustion and positively with
professional efficacy. Other studies found similar results
(Salem, 2015; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2010). Authentic
leadership was negatively related to both emotional
exhaustion and cynicism (Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Laschinger,
Wong, & Grau, 2012). In one study, empowerment mediated
the relationship between authentic leadership and burnout
(Laschinger et al., 2012). In another study, authentic leadership
improved work–life areas which enhanced occupational
coping and self-efficacy that ultimately decreased burnout
(Laschinger, Borgogni, Consiglio, & Read, 2015). Schaufeli
(2015) also reported a negative relationship between engaging
leadership and burnout that was mediated by job demands
and job resources.
Open Access
 Page 4 of 10
Although servant leadership shares similar characteristics
with transformational leadership, authentic leadership and
engaging leadership, it is more comprehensive. It includes
additional dimensions of leadership that are missing from
the aforementioned leadership theories. Hence, servant
leadership could be a viable leadership theory to reduce
burnout either directly or indirectly.
The following hypotheses were proposed:
H5: A negative significant relationship exists between servant
leadership and the burnout of followers.
H6: Job demands (overload) mediate a negative relationship
between servant leadership and the burnout of followers.
H7: Job resources mediate a negative relationship between
servant leadership and the burnout of followers.
Research design
Research approach
A quantitative research design was used to test seven
hypotheses. Four surveys were used to collect quantitative
data. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were
used to analyse the data.
Research method
Research participants
A non-probability sample of 186 employees was drawn
from a construction company in South Africa, which
completed 224 sets of surveys (with a 6-month interval).
The respondents (186 direct reports) completed a set of
four surveys, both before and after their managers
attended a leadership development programme. The
respondents evaluated their manager’s servant leadership
behaviour and their own levels of work engagement,
burnout, job demands and job resources before and after
the intervention. In total, 224 sets of pre- and post-test
surveys were completed by direct reports. Some
respondents only completed one set of surveys (either
before or after the intervention) because of restructuring
in the organisation. The data of managers were not used in
this study.
The majority of the sample consisted of men (81%) with
Afrikaans (35%) or English (27%) as their home language and
between the ages of 26 and 35 years (38%). The sample
consisted of 53% white employees, 38% black employees, 4%
Indian employees and 5% mixed race employees. 1% of the
sample was from other race types. Most of the participants
had a Grade 12 qualification (32%), worked for the company
for between 3 years and 5 years (39%) and were in middle
management positions (25%).
Measuring instruments
Data were collected using four surveys, namely, the Servant
Leadership Survey (SLS), the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the
Job Demands Resources Scale (JDRS).
http://www.sajip.co.za
Original Research
The SLS measures eight characteristics related to servant
leadership, namely: (1) standing back, (2) forgiveness, (3)
courage, (4) empowerment, (5) accountability, (6) authenticity,
(7) humility and (8) stewardship (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten,
2011). The questionnaire uses a six-point Likert type response
scale and consists of 30 items. A validation study of Van
Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) found acceptable reliability
scores for the sub-scales: standing back (α = 0.76), forgiveness
(α = 0.72), courage (α = 0.69), empowerment (α = 0.89),
accountability (α = 0.81), authenticity (α = 0.82), humility
(α = 0.91), and stewardship (α = 0.74). Another study showed
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.92 for empowerment, 0.74
for accountability, 0.79 for stewardship, 0.94 for humility, 0.71
for standing back, 0.71 for forgiveness, 0.75 for courage and
0.79 for authenticity (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014).
The UWES measures levels of work engagement and consists
of 17 items (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). A seven-point Likert
type scale is used in this survey. Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-
Roma and Bakker (2002) found the following internal
consistency scores for the three sub-scales of work engagement:
vigour (α = 0.80), dedication (α = 0.91) and absorption (α = 0.75).
The MBI of Maslach and Jackson (1981) measures burnout
experiences. It consists of 22 items and uses a six-point Likert
type response scale. Schaufeli et al. (2002) found good
reliability scores (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients) for the
sub-scales: exhaustion (α = 0.85), personal accomplishment
(α = 0.84) and depersonalisation (α = 0.73).
The JDRS was developed by Jackson and Rothmann (2005)
and measures job demands and job resources. It consists of
43 items and measures seven latent variables, namely: (1)
organisational support, (2) growth opportunities, (3) overload,
(4) job insecurity, (5) relationship with colleagues, (6) control
and (7) rewards. The instrument uses a four-point Likert type
scale. Jackson and Rothmann (2005) reported good reliability
in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients):
0.88 for organisational support, 0.80 for growth opportunities,
0.75 for overload, 0.90 for job insecurity, 0.76 for relationship
with colleagues, 0.71 for control and 0.78 for rewards. In this
study, five variables were used, namely organisational
support, growth opportunities, overload, relationship with
colleagues and control. Thirty-three items were used in total.
Research procedure
Surveys were distributed to the participants via an electronic
survey platform, namely Survey Monkey. Participants were
asked to complete four surveys on two occasions (6 months
apart). The purpose of the study as well as confidentiality,
voluntary participation and anonymity was explained. After
completion, the data were cleaned and prepared for statistical
analysis. Various statistical methods were used to analyse
the data.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistical methods such as mean, median, standard
deviation (SD), skewness and kurtosis were used to evaluate
Open Access
 Page 5 of 10 Original Research

the central tendency, dispersion and distribution of the data
(Collis & Hussey, 2009). In addition, the Shapiro–Wilk and
Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality tests were used to determine
normality (Pallant, 2010). The SPSS statistical software (version
24) was utilised to conduct the descriptive analysis.
Various inferential statistical methods were applied to
analyse the data and to test the hypotheses. Spearman’s
correlation was used to evaluate the linear association
between variables (Collis & Hussey, 2009). The reason for
using Spearman’s correlation was that the descriptive
statistical results indicated a non-normal distribution.
Practical significance for correlations were accepted at a
medium effect when r was between 0.30 and 0.49 or at a large
effect when r was above 0.49 (Collis & Hussey, 2009). The
SPSS (version 24) statistical software was used to compute
the correlation analysis.
The measurement or structural model was accepted when
one or more of the above-mentioned combinations were
evident.
Reliability was evaluated by means of computing omega
coefficients. Various researchers suggest that the McDonald’s
omega coefficient is a better method to evaluate reliability,
especially when using confirmatory factor analysis or
structural equation modelling (Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009;
Sijtsma, 2009; Zinbarg, Yovel, Revelle, & McDonald, 2006).
The lavaan package of RStudio (Rosseel, 2012) was used to
compute omega coefficients.
Ethical consideration
Permission was obtained from the General Manager of
Human Resources to conduct the research study within the
company.

Principal component analysis was conducted to determine

the number of factors in each measuring instrument. This
Results
was done individually for the SLS, the UWES, the MBI and In general, the descriptive statistical outputs indicated that
the Job Demands–Resources Scale (JDRS). A promax rotation the data were not normally distributed. The Shapiro–Wilk
method was used, and items were retained if the primary and Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality tests were significant at
loading was higher than 0.50, and also when a secondary the p < 0.05 level which indicated that the distribution of the
loading was smaller than 0.20, in case an item cross-loaded scores were not normal (Pallant, 2010). A summary of the
on more than one factor (Matsunaga, 2010). The SPSS descriptive statistical results is provided in Table 1.
(version 24) statistical software was also used to compute the
principal component analysis. The Spearman’s correlation analysis indicated a positive
significant correlation between job resources and work
Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to determine the engagement (r = 0.59) and between servant leadership and
factor loadings of the four questionnaires and to evaluate job resources (r = 0.58). Negative significant correlations were
several measurement models (Hox & Bechger, 1998). also found between work engagement and burnout (r = -0.43)
Structural equation modelling was used to examine how the and between job resources and burnout (r = -0.44). The results
data fitted various structural models and to test the research also showed a positive significant correlation between
model. Absolute and incremental fit indices were used to servant leadership and work engagement (r = 0.47). These
determine model fit such as chi-square (x²), root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean TABLE 1: Descriptive statistics for work engagement, burnout, overload, job
resources and servant leadership.
square residual (SRMR), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Scale Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) also known as the Tucker Work engagement 78.84 80.00 12.57 -0.55 -0.16
Lewis Index (TLI). A maximum likelihood estimator that Vigour 27.76 29.00 5.10 -0.50 -0.34
estimates with standard errors and a mean-adjusted chi- Dedication 24.33 25.00 4.77 -0.70 -0.43
square test statistic (MLM), also known as the Satorra–Bentler Absorption 26.65 27.00 4.71 -0.34 -0.31
chi-square, was chosen because the data were not normally Burnout 52.00 50.00 15.81 0.32 -0.70
distributed. This estimator is robust enough to use with non- Emotional exhaustion 21.41 19.50 9.78 0.68 -0.30
Depersonalisation 9.79 9.00 4.55 0.82 -0.00
normal data (Muthén & Muthén, 2010) and is seen as a great
Personal accomplishment 20.84 20.00 7.54 0.50 -0.36
method to accommodate non-normality (Hox & Bechger,
Overload 25.69 26.00 2.66 -0.71 0.77
1998). The statistical software, Mplus (Muthén & Muthén,
Job resources 81.96 84.00 11.97 -0.85 0.45
2015), was utilised to conduct the confirmatory factor analysis Organisational support 58.74 61.00 9.14 -0.81 0.08
and structural equation modelling. Growth opportunities 23.17 23.00 3.45 -0.87 1.05
Servant leadership 132.93 135.00 20.60 -0.92 1.92
The following combinations of fit criteria were used during Empowerment 33.04 34.00 6.60 -1.10 1.62
the confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation Standing back 12.74 13.00 3.15 -0.43 -0.14
modelling analysis phases to determine acceptable model fit Accountability 15.00 15.00 2.29 -1.17 2.13

(Hooper, Coughlan & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999): Forgiveness 11.39 11.00 3.32 -0.15 -0.19
Courage 7.58 8.00 2.50 -0.29 -0.44
• Insignificant chi-square (p > 0.05) Authenticity 16.70 17.00 3.51 -0.51 0.71
• CFI ≥ 0.95 and SRMR ≤ 0.09 (and or WLSMV < 1) Humility 21.96 23.00 4.34 -0.82 1.00
• TLI ≥ 0.95 and SRMR ≤ 0.09 (and or WLSMV < 1) Stewardship 14.52 15.00 2.66 -1.18 2.13
• RMSEA < 0.08 and SRMR ≤ 0.09 (and or WLSMV < 1). Note: All decimals were rounded to two places.

http://www.sajip.co.za Open Access

 Page 6 of 10 Original Research

correlations were significant at the p < 0.01 level. Correlation
results are depicted in Table 2.
Confirmatory factor analysis was done on four measurement
models. The first measurement model (Model 1) included all
variables and items as per the principal component analysis.
This model consisted of five latent variables, namely burnout,
work engagement (defined by vigour, dedication and
absorption), job resources (consisting of organisational
support, supervisor support, job clarity and colleague
support), overload and servant leadership (defined by
empowerment, humility, accountability, forgiveness and
courage). The second measurement model (Model 2)
consisted of four latent variables. In this model, absorption
and forgiveness were removed, because of factor loadings
lower than 0.40. Courage was also removed, because it
showed to be insignificant. Work engagement consisted
of vigour and dedication. Job resources consisted of
organisational support, supervisor support, job clarity and
colleague support. Servant leadership consisted of
empowerment, humility and accountability. Burnout was
used as a general factor and overload was included. The third
measurement model (Model 3) used both work engagement
and burnout as general factors. In this model, overload was
removed because it showed to be insignificant, and four
additional items were removed because they had lower factor
loadings than the rest. The fourth measurement model
(Model 4) also used work engagement and burnout as general
factors, but excluded the vigour items of work engagement,
because these showed much lower factor loadings than the
rest. Colleague support and accountability were also removed
because of lower factor loadings. Four problematic items
were in addition removed. This model consisted of four latent
latent variables, namely burnout, work engagement, job
resources (consisting of organisational support, supervisory
support and job clarity) and servant leadership (consisting of
empowerment and humility). In this model, servant leadership
was used as independent variable, and job resources, work
engagement, and burnout as dependent variables. In the
second model (Model 2), direct paths were evaluated between
servant leadership and burnout and between servant
leadership and work engagement. Job resources was removed
from this model. In Model 3, servant leadership was used as a
generic factor, and humility was removed. Servant leadership
was still used as the independent variable, with job resources,
work engagement, and burnout as dependent variables. The
model fit indices revealed that Model 3 fit the data the best
(CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.037, SMRM = 0.046 and
WRMR = 0.891). The goodness-of-fit indices of the three
structural models are presented in Table 4. The regression
coefficients of the latent variables are depicted in Table 5.
The mediation effects of job resources on the relationship
between servant leadership and work engagement, and the
relationship between servant leadership and burnout were
also evaluated. The results indicated that job resources
mediated the relationship between servant leadership and
work engagement, with a standardised estimate of 0.549
(p < 0.001). Job resources also mediated the relationship
between servant leadership and burnout, with a standardised
estimate of -0.287 (p < 0.001). The results of the mediation
analysis are presented in Table 6.
TABLE 3: Goodness-of-fit indices of the measurement models.
Measurement x² df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR WRMR
model
Model 1 1568.96 967 0.000 0.85 0.83 0.05 0.08 1.48

variables, namely burnout, work engagement, job resources Model 2 1069.12 646 0.000 0.88 0.86 0.05 0.08 1.48
Model 3 756.34 451 0.000 0.89 0.88 0.06 0.07 1.34
(consisting of organisational support, supervisory support
Model 4 192.61 141 0.003 0.97 0.96 0.04 0.05 0.97
and job clarity) and servant leadership, which consisted of
df, degrees of freedom, CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA, root
empowerment and humility. The results indicated that Model mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardised root mean square residual,
4 fit the data the best, with acceptable incremental fit indices WRMR, weighted root mean square residual.
Note: All decimals were rounded to two places except for the p-value.
of CFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.959, RMSEA = 0.040, SMRM = 0.051
and WRMR = 0.973. The goodness-of-fit indices of the four
TABLE 4: Goodness-of-fit indices of structural models.
measurement models are presented in Table 3. Structural x² df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR WRMR
model
The reliability coefficients of the variables in the fourth Model 1 193.05 143 0.003 0.97 0.96 0.04 0.05 0.99

measurement model were all acceptable. The omega Model 2 209.11 143 0.000 0.96 0.95 0.05 0.06 1.18
Model 3 126.96 97 0.022 0.98 0.97 0.04 0.05 0.89
coefficients were ω = 0.93 for work engagement, ω = 0.88 for
Significance at p < 0.05.
burnout, ω = 0.85 for job resources and ω = 0.91 for servant
df, Degrees of Freedom, CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA, root
leadership. mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardised root mean square residual,
WRMR, Weighted root mean square residual.
Note: All decimals were rounded to two places except for the p-value.
The next step in the inferential statistical analysis was to
evaluate three structural models. Model 1 consisted of four TABLE 5: Standardised regression coefficients of the latent variables.
Variable Estimate S.E. Z p
TABLE 2: Correlation matrix of latent variables. Work engagement        
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 Job resources 0.63 0.06 9.71 0.000*
1. Burnout 1.00         Burnout        
2. Work engagement -0.43* 1.00       Job resources -0.33 0.08 -3.88 0.000*
3. Overload 0.12 0.14 1.00     Job resources        
4. Job resources -0.44* 0.59** 0.78 1.00   Servant leadership 0.88 0.04 25.21 0.000*
5. Servant leadership -0.24 0.47* 0.02 0.58** 1.00 *, Significance at p < 0.001.
*, Significant correlation at p < 0.01; **, Significant correlation at p < 0.001. Note: All decimals were rounded to two places except for the p-value.
Note: All decimals were rounded to two places. S.E., standard error.

http://www.sajip.co.za Open Access


The first hypothesis was supported. The results showed a
positive significant relationship between servant leadership
and job resources (r = 0.58). The structural equation analysis
also showed that servant leadership predicted job resources
with a standardised estimate of 0.879 (p < 0.001). The second
hypothesis was rejected. The results showed an insignificant
relationship between servant leadership and job demands
(overload). The third hypothesis was accepted. The correlation
analysis confirmed that a positive significant correlation
existed between servant leadership and work engagement
(r = 0.47). However, the mediation analysis indicated that
this relationship was mediated by job resources with a
standardised estimate of 0.549 (p < 0.001). This confirms the
fourth hypothesis. Servant leadership influenced job
resources positively (0.879, p < 0.001) and job resources
influenced work engagement positively (0.625, p < 0.001).
Hypothesis five was rejected. No direct significant relationship
was found between servant leadership and burnout.
Hypothesis six could not be tested because overload was
removed because of its insignificance in the confirmatory
factor analysis stage. Hypothesis seven was confirmed by the
results. The mediation analysis showed that job resources
mediated the relationship between servant leadership and
burnout (-0.287, p < 0.001). Servant leadership influenced job
resources positively (0.879, p < 0.001) and job resources
influenced burnout negatively (-0.326, p < 0.001). Job resources
was defined by organisational support (0.842, p < 0.001),
supervisory support (0.843, p < 0.001) and job clarity (0.719,
p < 0.001). The research model with the standardised estimates
of the latent variables is presented in Figure 1.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the interrelationships
between servant leadership, job demands, job resources,
work engagement and burnout in a construction company. In
this section, the role of job resources in the relationships
between: (1) servant leadership and work engagement and
(2) servant leadership and burnout are discussed.
Servant leadership and work engagement
Although previous studies indicated that servant leadership
influenced work engagement directly (Carter & Baghurst,
TABLE 6: The indirect effects of servant leadership on work engagement and
burnout via job resources.
Path Unstandardised estimate Standardised estimate
Servant leadership 0.70
to work engagement
Servant leadership -0.43
to burnout
Note: All decimals were rounded to two places except for the p-value.
–0.326
Servant 0.879
Job resources
leadership
0.625
FIGURE 1: Research model with findings
http://www.sajip.co.za
Page 7 of 10 Original Research
2013; De Clercq et al., 2014), this study found that job
resources mediated the relationship between servant
leadership and work engagement. This supports the notion
that servant leadership can be considered as a separate
variable that influences job resources positively to ultimately
enhance work engagement (and not necessarily as a job
resource in itself). Similar results were reported by Schaufeli
(2015) in which job resources mediated the relationship
between engaging leadership and work engagement.
It was evident that servant leadership influenced job
resources positively and that higher job resources predicted
work engagement. This result means that servant leaders
provide the necessary job resources to employees that in
turn increase the work engagement levels of employees.
The type of resources servant leaders offer can be clustered
into organisational resources (organisational support),
positional resources (job clarity) and social resources
(supervisor support).
Servant leaders provide organisational resources in two
ways, namely participation in decision-making and
providing growth and development opportunities. Servant
leaders are humble (Patterson, 2003); they listen well and
allow others to contribute options and solutions before
choosing an appropriate decision or action (Spears, 2010). In
this way, power is shared within the organisation and
employees become part of the decision-making process of an
organisation. According to Blanchard (2010), shared power
and high employee involvement is one of the main factors to
sustain a high performing organisation. When employees are
allowed to participate and collaborate, they feel more valued
and respected, and become more engaged in their work.
Increased work engagement levels will enhance
organisational commitment, which in return produce better
organisational performance.
Another major role of a servant leader is to empower
followers (Van Dierendonck, 2011). This is done by means of
providing continuous growth and development opportunities
to activate individual talent and to make employees more
autonomous. Development opportunities might include
training and development, coaching, mentoring and even
allowing employees to make mistakes in a safe environment.
However, empowerment is more than just development. It
includes transferring accountability to the employee and
p
activating individual talent towards achieving a higher
0.55 0.000
purpose (Bobbio et al., 2012). Servant leaders portray good
-0.29 0.000 stewardship and keep themselves and others accountable.
They will develop employees to transfer accountability
securely to them. They will provide clear direction and
boundaries for employees and develop employees to become
more autonomous to control their jobs in line with individual
Burnout and organisational goals. Servant leaders will ensure
employees grow personally, professionally and spiritually
(Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011). When employees participate in
Work
the decision-making process of an organisation and have
engagement
opportunities for personal growth and development in the
organisation, they will become more engaged in their work.
Open Access
 Page 8 of 10
A servant leader also provides the required positional
resources to employees in the form of job clarity. Servant
leaders set a higher purpose vision for the organisation and
align it with the purpose, skill and talent of an employee
(Blanchard, 2010). In this way, the employee understands
how he or she is contributing towards achieving a higher
purpose. This strategic alignment makes work more
meaningful and purposeful, especially when it is aligned
with the employee’s interest, passion, purpose, talent and
skill. Servant leaders build close relationships with their
followers and communicate frequently the requirements of a
goal or task. This ensures employees know exactly what are
expected from them and why it is important. When the
expectations and purpose of a job are clear, employees become
more engaged in their work.
Servant leaders provide furthermore the social resources
employees need in terms of supervisor support. They
genuinely care about employees (Van Dierendonck &
Patterson, 2014) and built trustful relationships with their
followers (Ehrhart, 2004). They practice good listening skills
(Spears, 2010) and are authentic, humble and portray high
levels of integrity (Laub, 1999; Page & Wong, 2000). These
characteristics enable a servant leader to understand the
needs of employees better to support them more appropriately.
When employees feel they are valued and respected by their
leader, receive the necessary supervisory support from their
leader and get on well with their leader, they will experience
higher employee engagement levels.
Servant leadership and burnout
Another result highlighted by this study was that job
resources had a negative significant impact on burnout. This
could mean that when employees in this sample receive
more job resources, their burnout levels are likely to decrease.
Similar results were found in other studies (Hu, Schaufeli, &
Taris, 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Although no direct
relationship could be found between servant leadership and
burnout, servant leadership predicted an increase in job
resources and an increase in job resources predicted lower
burnout levels. The results confirmed that job resources
mediated the relationship between servant leadership and
burnout. The explanation of this finding could be twofold.
Firstly, it could mean that servant leaders provide the
required job resources to buffer the negative effects of high
job demands that would normally cause burnout (Bakker,
Schaufeli, Leiter & Taris 2008). It could also mean that
servant leaders provide the required job resources to help
employees recover from burnout. In other words, employees
working under servant leaders might be less inclined to
experience burnout because they will receive the necessary
job resources either to cope with high job demands or to
recover from burnout.
The types of job resources servant leaders provide to decrease
burnout are organisational resources (organisational
support), positional resources (job clarity) and social
resources (supervisor support). In this study, organisational
http://www.sajip.co.za
Original Research
support refers to participating in decision-making as well as
personal growth and development opportunities. Job clarity
means knowing exactly what the purpose and expectations
of a job is. Supervisor support refers to having a good
relationship with your supervisor, receiving the necessary
support from your supervisor and feeling appreciated by
your supervisor. These job resources will ultimately reduce
burnout. With less burnout, employers could expect healthier
employees (Rothmann & Essenko, 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004) that work safer (Li, Jiang, Yao, & Li, 2013), perform
better (Schaufeli, 2003) and are less inclined to leave the
company (Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Practical implications
This study indicated that servant leadership could be a viable
solution to improve work engagement and decrease burnout
in organisations, in particular construction companies.
Companies should therefore develop servant leaders internally
and create servant leader cultures within organisations to
sustain and improve employee engagement. One way to instil
servant leadership could be to incorporate it within human
capital systems, policies and procedures. For example,
psychometric assessments can be aligned to servant leadership
attributes and competencies to recruit and select new managers.
It can also be used in talent management processes to identify
new future leaders. Specific servant leader development
programmes can in addition be developed and implemented
to equip leaders with servant leader values, attributes,
competencies, principles and practices. A performance
management system could furthermore include 360 leader
reviews and work engagement surveys to evaluate servant
leader behaviour in the company. Performance reviews can
then be linked to customised remuneration and recognition
systems to reward servant leader behaviour in the organisation.
All these interventions would assist a company to select, train,
review and reward servant leaders within an organisation and
in return benefit from a more engaged workforce and better
organisational performance.
Limitations and recommendations
A first limitation of this study was that a sample only included
employees from the construction industry. The results are
therefore limited to this industry and cannot be generalised
to other industries or even the general public. The sample
also consisted of more males than females of which the
majority had Afrikaans and English as home language and
were mainly black and white employees. Hence, another
limitation can be that the results cannot be generalised to all
genders, languages or cultures. A final limitation was that
some employees evaluated more than one manager because
of a matrix reporting structure. These surveys were combined
into one data set. This could have influenced the results
either positively or negatively.
Valuable future research may apply longitudinal study
designs to examine the relationship between servant
leadership and work engagement or burnout over time. This
Open Access
 Page 9 of 10
will provide more information on the sustainability and
impact that servant leadership has on job resources, work
engagement and burnout over time. The results of this study
can also be used to design servant leadership development
programmes. The effectiveness of these development
programmes can then be evaluated using experimental type
studies. This might help practitioners to develop servant
leaders effectively in organisations. A final research need is to
validate a framework or procedure to implement servant
leadership in organisations and to create serving organisations.
Such a framework could assist organisational development
practitioners to create and sustain serving organisations that
leave behind sustainable and positive legacies in society.
Conclusion
The general aim of this study was to investigate the
interrelationships between servant leadership, work
engagement, burnout, job demands and job resources in a
construction company. Four quantitative surveys were used
to collect data, and various statistical methods were used to
analyse the data. The results indicated that job resources
mediated a positive relationship between servant leadership
and work engagement and a negative relationship between
servant leadership and burnout.
The findings of this study highlighted that servant leadership
can be used in the construction industry to enhance work
engagement levels and to decrease burnout levels. Servant
leaders provide the job resources employees need to become
more engaged in their work and to experience less burnout.
These job resources are provided in the form of organisational
support, job clarity and supervisory support. This study
made a theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge on
servant leadership and work-related well-being by providing
empirical evidence on the interrelationships between servant
leadership, job demands, job resources, work engagement
and burnout.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced
them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
M.F.C., M.B. and M.G. co-designed the research study. M.F.C.
conducted the research, analysed the data and wrote the
manuscript. M.B. and M.G. assisted with the data analysis
and contributed to the writing of the manuscript.
References
Albrecht, S.L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership,
empowerment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover
intentions in community health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in
Health Services, 24(3), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511871111151126
Alok, K., & Israel, D. (2012). Authentic leadership & work engagement. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498–510. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from
http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
http://www.sajip.co.za
Original Research
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N.J. (2011). Service worker burnout and turnover
intentions: Roles of person-job fit, servant leadership, and customer orientation.
Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.
2011.533091
Babcock-Roberson, M.E., & Strickland, O.J. (2010). The relationship between
charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship
behaviours. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326. Retrieved July 23, 2014,
from http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
Bakker, A.B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/​
02683940710733115
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement:
The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
orgpsych-031413-091235
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3),
187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649
Barbuto, J.E., & Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification
of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287091
Bezuidenhout, A., & Schultz, C. (2013). Transformational leadership and employee
engagement in the mining industry. Journal of Contemporary Management, 10,
279–297. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/​
10500/13220/JCM_Sub_Vol9_49_v4_July%202013.pdf?sequence=1
Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating
high performing organizations, FT Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2008). Lead like Jesus: Lessons for everyone from the
greatest leadership role model of all time, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.
Bobbio, A., Van Dierendonck, D., & Manganelli, A.M. (2012). Servant leadership in
Italy and its relation to organizational variables. Leadership, 8(3), 229–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715012441176
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Van Den Heuvel, M. (2015). Leader-
member exchange, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 754–770. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-
2013-0088
Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2013). The influence of servant leadership on restaurant
employee engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453–464. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0
Chathury, A.S. (2008). Servant leadership in a large South African business
organization. Master’s thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate
and postgraduate students (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Beer, L.T., Pienaar, J., & Rothmann, S. (2016). Job burnout, work engagement and
self-reported treatment for health conditions in South Africa. Stress and Health,
32, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2576
De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Servant
leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader-follower
social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 183–212. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21185
Dennis, R.S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership
assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8),
600–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510633692
De Sousa, M.J.C., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2014). Servant leadership and engagement
in a merge process under high uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 27(6), 877–899. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0133
Ehrhart, M.G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of
unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
Field, L.K., & Buitendach, J.H. (2012). Work engagement, organisational commitment,
job resources and job demands of teachers working within disadvantaged high
schools in Kwazulu-Natal South Africa. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 27(2), 87–95.
Retrieved January 6, 2016, from http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
Gallup. (2013). State of the global workplace: Employee engagement insights for
business leaders worldwide. Retrieved July 21, 2014, from http://www.gallup.
com/strategicconsulting/164735/state-global-workplace.aspx
Greenleaf, R.K. (1998). The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes:
A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M., & Johnsen, T.B. (2007). Burnout in the information technology
sector: Does leadership matter? European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 16(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320601084558
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from http://www.ejbrm.com/
vol6/v6-i1/v6-i1-papers.htm
Hox, J.J., & Bechger, T.M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling.
Family Science Review, 11, 354–373. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from http://
joophox.net/publist/semfamre.pdf
Open Access
 Page 10 of 10
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2011). The job demands–resources model: An
analysis of additive and joint effects of demands and resources. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.009
Hunter, E.M., Neubert, M.J., Perry, S.J., Witt, L.A., Penney, L.M., & Weinberger, E.
(2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for
employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
Jackson, L., & Rothmann, S. (2005). Work-related well-being of educators in a district
of the North-West Province. Perspectives in Education, 23(3), 107–122. Retrieved
December 10, 2016, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=​
EJ718600
Kopperud, K., Martinsen, O., & Humborstad, S. (2014). Engaging leaders in the eyes of
the beholder: On the relationship between transformational leadership, work
engagement, service climate, and self-other agreement. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 21(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813475666
Laschinger, H.K.S., Borgogni, L., Consiglio, C., & Read, E. (2015). The effects of
authentic leadership, six areas of worklife, and occupational coping self-efficacy
on new graduate nurses’ burnout and mental health: A cross-sectional study.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(6), 1080–1089. https://doi.org/​
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.002
Laschinger, H.K.S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic
leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 739–753.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.804646
Laschinger, H.K.S., Wong, C.A., & Grau, A.L. (2012). The influence of authentic
leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout
and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 49(10), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.05.012
Laub, J.A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the
organizational leadership assessment (OLA) instrument. Doctoral thesis. Fort
Lauderdale, FL: Florida Atlantic University. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from http://
www.olagroup.com/images/mmdocument/laubdissertationbrief.pdf
Li, F., Jiang, L., Yao, X., & Li, Y. (2013). Job demands, job resources and safety outcomes:
The roles of emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 51, 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.029
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
Lingard, H. (2003). The impact of individual and job characteristics on ‘burnout’
among civil engineers in Australia and the implications for employee turnover.
Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), 69–80. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0144619032000065126
Lingard, H., & Sublet, A. (2002). The impact of job and organizational demands on
marital or relationship satisfaction and conflict among Australian civil engineers.
Construction Management and Economics, 20, 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/​
01446190210156073
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.
Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113. Retrieved February 8, 2016, from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.4030020205/pdf
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-
to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110. https://doi.
org/10.4090/juee.2008.v2n2.033040
Mendes, F., & Stander, M.W. (2011). Positive organisation: The role of leader behaviour
in work engagement and retention. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v38i1.900
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with
latent variables (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with
latent variables (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Naidoo, D., Brand, A., Harrison, A., Raghuber, B., Botes, D., Deysel, D., et al. (2015). SA
construction: Highlighting trends in the South African construction industry.
Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/sa-
construction-2015.pdf
Page, D., & Wong, T.P.T. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant
leadership. In S. Adjibol (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history
and development (pp. 69–110). Washington, DC: American University Press.
Pallant. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide for data analysis using
SPSS. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Patterson, K.A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Doctoral dissertation.
Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University. Retrieved October 27, 2015, from http://
www.mendeley.com/research/servant-leadership-theoretical-model/
Penger, S., & Cerne, M. (2014). Authentic leadership, employees’ job satisfaction, and
work engagement: A hierarchical linear modelling approach. Economic Research,
27(1), 508–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2014.974340
http://www.sajip.co.za
Original Research
Peterson, S.J., Galvin, B.M., & Lange, D. (2012). Ceo servant leadership: Exploring
executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3),
565–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x
Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R.E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb:
Commets on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11336-008-9102-z
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of
Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from http://www.
jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
Rothmann, S., & Essenko, N. (2007). Job characteristics, optimism, burnout, and ill
health of support staff in a higher education institution in South Africa. South
African Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/​
008124630703700110
SAFCEC. (2014). State of the South African civil industry: 3rd Quarter 2014. Retrieved
February 4, 2016, from https://www.safcec.org.za/resource/collection/
AAB7C9E5-B817-466E-84AB-370620F4ACA6/StateOfTheIndustry_2014Q2.pdf
Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/026839406​
10690169
Salem, I. (2015). Transformational leadership: Relationship to job stress and job
burnout in five-star hotels. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4), 240–253.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415581445
Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Past performance and future perspectives of burnout research.
SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 1–15. Retrieved October 11, 2014, from
www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/download/127/123
Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model.
Career Development International, 20(5), 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/​
02683940010305270
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary
manual. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. Retrieved September
12, 2014, from http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/178.pdf
Sendjaya, S. (2015). Personal and organizational excellence through servant
leadership: Learning to serve, serving to lead, leading to transform, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
Sendjaya, S., & Cooper, B. (2011). Servant leadership behaviour scale: A hierarchical
model and test of construct validity. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 20(3), 416–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594321003590549
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of
Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11336-008-9101-0
Spears, L.C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective,
caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25–30. Retrieved May
23, 2017, from https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jvl/vol1_iss1/
Spears_Final.pdf
Tang, G., Kwan, H.K., Zhang, D., & Zhu, Z. (2016). Work–family effects of servant
leadership: The roles of emotional exhaustion and personal learning. Journal of
Business Ethics, 137(2), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7
Tuckey, M.R., Bakker, A.B., & Dollard, M.F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize
working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025942
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development
and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology,
26(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1
Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2014). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of
servant leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of
Business Ethics, 128(1), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2085-z
World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on noncommunicable diseases
2014. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from https://doi.org/ISBN9789241564854
World Health Organization. (2015). Assessing national capacity for the prevention and
control of noncommunicable diseases. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://
apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/246223/1/9789241565363-eng.pdf?ua=1
Zinbarg, R.E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R.P. (2006). Estimating generalizability
to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of
estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121–144. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146621605278814
Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2010). Leadership styles and burnout: Is there an
association? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
22(3), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011035927
Open Access
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.